Skip to main content

Table 5 Model input parameter values and ranges

From: Protecting child health and nutrition status with ready-to-use food in addition to food assistance in urban Chad: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Parameter Base case Worst case Best case Source of base case (and range)
Effectiveness measures:
Intervention area: diarrhea episodes per child-month 0.81 1.01 0.61 Base case: [18]
Worst case: + 25% of the base case
Best case: - 25% of the base case
Control area: diarrhea episodes per child-month 1.17 1.58 0.76 Base case: [18]
Worst case: + 35% of the base case*
Best case: -35% of the base case*
Intervention area: anemia prevalence 56.50 % 70.63 % 42.38 % Base case: [18]
Worst case: + 25% of the base case
Best case: -25% of the base case
Control area: anemia prevalence 66.80 % 83.50 % 50.10 % Base cas: [18]
Worst case: + 25% of the base case
Best case: - 25% of the base case
Incremental cost per child of RUSF component (EUR):
Incremental cost 374 484 249 Base case: Total program costs (Table 3)
Worst case: + 25% of all program costs + 50% of support costs
Best case: -25% of all program costs + 15% of support costs
Component costs: ǂ     
RUSF and related shipping 38 38 8 Worst case: Imported RUSF scenario: from program accounting
Best case: Local production scenario: reduced RUSF costs [44] and no international shipping
Other program costs 238 298 179 Base case: Program accounting
Worst case: + 25% of the base case
Best case: -25% of the base case
Support costs allocated 97 138 41 Base case: 35% Staff time allocation
Worst case: 50% allocation
Best case: 15% allocation
  1. RUSF: Ready-to-use Supplementary Food
  2. Costs have been rounded to the nearest euro.
  3. * Estimates for diarrhea incidence in the control area are given a wider range due to higher loss to follow-up on monthly incidence outcomes in the control area, and resulting higher uncertainty in these estimates.
  4. ǂ Component costs are only used in univariate sensitivity analysis.